Communicated on 16 October 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 84271/17
Cristian Florinel MOROŞANU against Romania
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Romanian nationals. Their personal details and the dates of introduction of their respective applications are set out in the appended table.
The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those presented in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011) and Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee], no. 889/15 and 38 others, §§ 4‑11, 5 June 2018). In respect of the applicants, the facts can be summarised as follows.
Between 23 and 25 December 1989 the applicants were injured by gunshots or their close relatives were shot dead in Bucharest and Reșița during the events that led to the overthrow of the communist regime.
The main criminal investigation opened in 1990 concerning the use of force, both prior to and following the overthrow of communism, is currently the subject matter of file no. 11/P/2014 recorded with the domestic military prosecutor’s office.
On 14 October 2015 the prosecutor’s office closed the investigation, finding that the complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences, and some of the charges were res judicatae.
In June 2016 the High Court of Cassation and Justice upheld a decision by the Prosecutor General to quash the prosecutor’s decision of 14 October 2015 and reopen the case. The investigation is still ongoing before the domestic authorities.
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities, capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible for their injuries or the death of their close relatives during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Reșița.
2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Reșița.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 133-35, 24 May 2011), was the investigation in the present cases compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
Particular circumstances of the application
84271/17
11/12/2017
Cristian Florinel MOROŞANU
29/12/1971
Brașov
Injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 in Bucharest.
2666/18
04/01/2018
Aurel IORDAN
02/05/1967
Bucharest
Injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 in Bucharest.
14564/18
19/03/2018
Maria SMARANDA
16/05/1958
Reșița
David-Daniel DEACONESCU
Wife of a victim killed by gunshot on 23/24 December 1989 in Reșița.
19080/18
13/04/2018
Floarea PORTASĂ
03/06/1939
Bucharest
Wife of a victim killed by gunshot on 23/24 December 1989 in Bucharest.
19090/18
13/04/2018
Nicoleta CÎRJĂ
06/08/1972
Bucharest
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshot on 23/24 December 1989 in Bucharest.
24843/18
17/05/2018
Albina POPTELECAN
28/10/1960
Gornea,, Caraș-Severin County
David-Daniel DEACONESCU
Wife of a victim killed by gunshot on 24/25 December 1989 in Reșița.
28919/18
11/06/2018
Maria RUVINEANȚU
16/08/1943
Reșița
David-Daniel DEACONESCU
Mother of a victim killed by gunshot on 25 December 1989 in Reșița.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy